Letters: Sandy Hook – the legislation issue

In response to “President to propose change to gun laws,” (Dec. 20): President Obama has put Vice President Joe Biden in charge of creating tighter gun laws. I wonder if he will have time or allowed to look into Obama’s Fast and Furious deal? I don’t think we know how many have been killed by guns sent to Mexico by that poorly tracked operation. Obama is using the Sandy Hook school tragedy as another way to get our minds off his Mexico gun deal.

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

The 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh – did we learn anything from that? Can we still buy bomb making material?

Where can I buy an assault weapon and skirt background checks, per Obama’s statement?

[With] a large-capacity magazine/clip, an experienced person can change out small capacity magazine quickly and shoot a large number of rounds in a short amount of time. So in my opinion, large- or small-capacity mags restrictions will not deter a person set out to do harm to a group of people. – Tom Fox, San Diego

A decent period of mourning has passed on the worst indecency in our history. It is time to take measures against any repeats. Many of the steps now being suggested are valid, and I’d like to add these few programs:

• Cooperation of the NRA is mandatory. If it is as all-powerful, caring and influential as it claims, get it to encourage better screening at all levels – gun shops, gun shows and shooting ranges.

• Limit accessibility. Local law enforcement should require all gun owners to complete a questionnaire. This would be an inventory of all arms, accessories, locks, ammo. It should state that all guns are not in the home, and give their locations. The form would pledge that the gun is only for use in a militia.

• Accountability in an archive. Start with re-registration of weapons by present owners and users. License renewal requires a fee, and the reissued license can be posted and presented to officers upon request. The fee covers inspection, testing and repairs as necessary. – Marv Gold, San Diego

Current calls for some type of gun control, notwithstanding the strictures of the Second Amendment, are naive and foolish. When all firearms are removed from law-abiding citizens, who is left that will have firearms? Obviously, the criminal elements, who care nothing about gun-control laws.

The fact is that all recent massacres – Columbine, Aurora, Fort Hood, Newtown – have taken place in so-called gun-free areas. The shooter knew there would be no armed response.

The futility of making magazines capable of holding over 10 rounds illegal should be apparent. Anyone with even rudimentary firearms training can replace an empty magazine with a full one in a matter of seconds. Note that the shooter in the recent massacres had multiple loaded magazines.

What is the answer? It must be a carefully crafted program of background checks for purchasers, training, enhanced mental and emotional scrutiny of purchasers and possibly a national registry of gun serial numbers. Of course, fully automatic weapons should continue to be illegal except for law enforcement and the military. – Mitchell L. Lathrop, San Diego

After reading the commentaries written by Ruben Navarrette Jr. (“No easy answers,” Opinion, Dec. 20) and Assemblyman Brian Jones (“The gun-control issue: Avoid knee-jerk reaction,” Opinion, Dec. 20) regarding their displeasure of the crying out for gun-control legislation, I can only respond by saying if not now, when?

Mr. Navarrette lists various proposals that he would be in favor of, but for some reason he feels it’s too soon or too inappropriate to talk about them. News flash to Mr. Navarrette: These proposals have been discussed for a very long time, but the gun lobby has been so powerful over the years that politicians have been afraid to take action. Finally there may be a crack in that fear, though unfortunately it has come about from tragedy. Consider it a wake-up call, Mr. Navarrette. Important actions, like the ones you support may actually have a chance to pass.

As to Assemblyman Jones’ comments, it is clear that he has no intention of moving forward with any kind of gun legislation under any circumstances. It is he who is taking advantage of the tragedy in Connecticut by being dismissive of good faith calls for sanity in our gun laws. There will never be a good time to discuss these issues in Assemblyman Jones world.

As sorry as those commentaries were, they don’t come close to the repulsiveness of what Miles McPherson talked about in his piece, “A conversation with God on Sandy Hook shooting” (Opinion, Dec. 20). To use a tragedy to rant against not allowing prayer in schools and to equate banning guns with banning God as he does by quoting Bible passages is disgusting. He even equates murderers who by their evil acts don’t obey God with law-abiding people who don’t accept God. This is a pastor? Like it or not, Mr. McPherson, we live in a secular nation and we have a Constitution that guides us, imperfect as it may be, and will continue to protect us from the tripe you would wish on us. – Rob Cohen, San Diego

In response to John Turner’s comments (Letters, Dec. 19) regarding my letter to the editor (published Dec. 18), Mr. Turner has caused me to give pause to my suggestion that guns should be banned.

He puts forth the argument that the framers of our Constitution were wise to ensure the people’s right to bear arms to prevent tyranny against the people. He also suggests that the U.S. would become just like Germany in World War II and Cold War [Soviet Union] and China if gun rights were curtailed.

I’m researching the past 200 years to find references to the last time the government assaulted citizens in an Oregon Mall, gunned down high school students in Columbine, destroyed lives on a Virgina college campus or massacred 20 children and six adults in Connecticut.

I’m willing to concede that legitimate and responsible gun owners are not the problem. The real tyranny comes from the unbalanced who get access to those guns. We should fear the tyranny reaped upon us by our fellow citizens more than the perceived threat from our government. – Jack V. Cohen, San Diego

The Dec. 20 commentary by Ruben Navarrette Jr. was a very strange and self-serving response to the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown. The writer, who grew up with guns, turns the gun issue upside down as he doesn’t hide his sympathy for the gun enthusiasts. Yet he admonishes the gun-control advocates for lacking respect for the victims of the massacre. Why? Because they came out for gun control measures at the most appropriate time – immediately after the horrific massacre. This to Ruben was a cynical act of political selfishness to advance a personal agenda. He unbelievably rejects being rational at this time and just being emotional. Well, Mr. Navarrete, we can do both – and, have you no shame? – Rudy Villasenor, Chula Vista

I can hardly wait to be lectured by the administration about my gun rights by those who gave Mexican cartels guns and have caused many times more deaths than in New Town. – Rolla Rich, Spring Valley